On 4/3/11 18:04 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 4/3/2011 5:17 AM, RHF wrote:

the 'myth' of global warming/cooling
is that it is man made - imho ~ RHF

On Apr 3, 6:34 am, Joe from wrote:

Man made is a 'myth'?

1) Are you denying the laws of chemistry by saying that carbon
dioxide
is not a greenhouse gas?

2) Are you denying that we (the human race) are continually
putting more
and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (especially as China and
India demand more cars and demand more electricity)

Sorry, but CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas (which DOES cause warming --
that's
why they call it 'greenhouse') and we *ARE* putting more and more
CO2
into the atmosphere.

- Sorry, tap dance all you want, but that sure looks man made to me.

On 4/3/2011 4:21 PM, RHF wrote:

Yes 'some' CO2 is Man-Made and More CO2 Ain't !

Your Man-Made x% does not Out-Weigh the Earths
Own Cyclic* XX%

So, you are suggesting we can just keep pouring an unlimited amount
of CO2 into the atmosphere with impunity?

Nice tap dance, but no cigar.

No, what he's saying is that the amount of man-released CO2 into
the atmosphere is trivial compared to what is released from natural
sources...most notably from volcanism.

One volcano is capable of releasing more CO2, as well as
sulphurous oxides into the atmosphere than man has ever released.

Mt St Helens, for instance, released more trash into the
atmosphere in 24 hours than all of mankinds pollution since he first
stepped from the trees combined. Krakatoa orders of magnitude more.

Volcanism is a state of being on the planet. There are active
volcanoes releasing greenhouse gasses every day of very year and
have been since the planet cooled from the primordial mass.

Mankind's total historic contribution is not even a measurable
fraction of that mass.

In fact, the greatest store of CO2 on the planet is in the seas.
And when the planet warms, due to solar heating, there is a release
of CO2. And it's been like this since the seas were formed. The
dramatic hockey stick curve marking an increase in CO2 is a symptom,
not a cause. If it were a cause, the period of extreme warming seen
about the time of the launch of Leif Eriksson would have resulted in
a peak temperature that would begun to approach Venus.

Here's something else. If CO2 were a cause of warming, the
increasing biomass, human and animal, exhaling CO2, would have
raised the temperatures sufficiently to release oceanic CO2
sufficient to abate the period of extreme cooling around the time of
the Revolution resulting from the Maunder minimum, at which time the
decrease of UV reaching the earth caused global cooling on an
unprecendented scale, achieving some of the lowest average
temperatures since the first half of the Quaternary Ice Age.

But why pick on CO2? It's total partial pressure in the
atmosphere is, itself, trivial. And it's by far the least present
greenhouse gas. Why not pick on the more plentiful greenhouse
gasses. The primary greenhouse gas being water vapor, which has been
more or less constant throughout the millenia since the first oxygen
was released from the rocks. There's more water vapor in the
atmosphere at any one moment, than there will ever be CO2 produced
by man throughout his existence. And yet, we ignore that. Why?

Conveniently, because governments can't tax it.

It is a political convenience that this global climatic
catastrophe has coincided with the rise in eco-political activism.
And very convenient for those who can and will profit from this
movement. I don't need to mention any names, but he's refused to
debate this issue, made hundreds of millions of dollars dealing in
approbations based on it, has sold carbon credits to himself, used
energy at 10 times the rate of his own constituents, and has
increased his own energy usage, and carbon output by an order of
magnitude, while insisting at every turn that we have a moral
obligation to curtail our own energy usage.

Sound familiar?

Meanwhile, the President you despise more than Satan, himself, Mr
Bush, has built a home with such low ecological impact that it's
considered the state of the art. Using 10th the energy of his
neighbors, and 1/100th the energy of our favorite global warming
evangelist. Look it up, if you have the nerve.

Moreover, the temperature hasn't risen, according to NOAA, since
1998. And in fact, 1997 and 1998, the years presented as the warmest
in the 20th century, are actually not even close to the hottest year
according to scientific meteorological records, as released by the
US Government: 1934.

Meteorological normalcy is, and always has been a myth. The one
constant in meteorology is: change. The one constant in climatic
reality is: change.

Global temperatures vary with the sunspot cycle. There are also
periodic variations in solar output (Sol IS a variable star),
confirmed by core samples taken at the Earth's poles.

The variations in global temperatures have cyclic periods, and
predictable patterns. And all of natural cause.

The only 'crisis' in the entire Global Warming debate is: How
long will it be before, and what are the consequences after, the
myth crashes around the proponents' ears.

If you want to really know what the long term picture of global
climate really looks like, take a look at the history of where the
world's wine has been grown. It's moving south. The great vintages
at the south of France were transplanted from Scotland, where some
of the greatest wines in earlier history have been produced. But no
longer because of the cooling climate.

Eriksson names his landing in Nova Scotia Vinland because of the
acres upon acres of natural grapevines that grew there. Miles upon
miles of them.

But no more. Because of the cooling climate.

Look at where wine has historically been grown. You'll see a
pattern of migration to southern latitudes, because the climates
have cooled too much for wine grape production over the centuries.

Look it up.

Unless you're really less interested in the truth than pounding
your fist in the face of those who live in a manner inconsistent
with your preferences.

Which raises the REAL question.....

Do you object because they do it? Or because they can afford it?


Have a good evening Joe. You may begin your fantasy response, now.